Benchmark scores for 3D Mark's Time Spy have surface, and are purported to represent the performance level of an unidentified "Generic VGA" - which is being identified as AMD's new 12 nm Polaris revision. The RX 590 product name makes almost as much sense as it doesn't, though; for one, there's no real reason to release another entire RX 600 series, unless AMD is giving the 12 nm treatment to the entire lineup (which likely wouldn't happen, due to the investment in fabrication process redesign and node capacity required for such). As such, the RX 590 moniker makes sense if AMD is only looking to increase its competitiveness in the sub-$300 space as a stop-gap until they finally have a new graphics architecture up their shader sleeves.

Of course, the scores themselves are... Somewhat strange. The RX 590 in these scores, apparently running with a 1545 MHz clock (205 MHz higher than the RX 580's base boost clock) achieved a graphics score of 4,759 points. This is within spitting distance of known RX 580 scores (attributable to variance in benchmarking results, really), which could mostly reach these scores themselves - while overclocked over their boost clocks. The original poster, TUM_APISAK, has come out to say that the comparison scores in the pics are of two RX 590 graphics cards which are simply being misread by the benchmark suite.

The reported RX 590's call for fame is that its 1545 MHz clocks can be achieved at much lower power consumption figures than an overclocked RX 580 - and would likely be overcklockable on top of the base 1545 MHz, thus increasing the gap over the base clock % increase. Remember overlcocking gains aren't linear, though, and since it seems the RX 590 will still make use of GDDR5 memory (2000 MHz clocks; and again, remember the investment in repurposing the design for GDDR6), so you better push out your own manual memory overcklocking to improve on Polaris' most pressing limitation.
Source:
Reddit

If that refresh of polaris ends being 10% up from 580 with better thermals and power drawwhile being on the same price level, it can sell well. Nevertheless, AMD needs to up their game in the GPU segment. I would prefer a Vega 12nm refresh with better HBM2 clocks and tuned much better than the 1st gen in factory voltage settings to consume 10-15% less and have at least 10-15% higher performance. It could be done for sure as Vega UV&OC has shown in tests.

"HD64G said:If that refresh of polaris ends being 10% up from 580 with better thermals and power drawwhile being on the same price level, it can sell well. Nevertheless, AMD needs to up their game in the GPU segment. I would prefer a Vega 12nm refresh with better HBM2 clocks and tuned much better than the 1st gen in factory voltage settings to consume 10-15% less and have at least 10-15% higher performance. It could be done for sure as Vega UV&OC has shown in tests.

Already working on 7nm.

"tvamos said:No, remember 290/X, 390/X. Was so with HD series (like 7990)

Yup 295 was the dual card for that era, then they relagated the dual GPU segment to Radeon Pro.

"HD64G said:If that refresh of polaris ends being 10% up from 580 with better thermals and power drawwhile being on the same price level, it can sell well. Nevertheless, AMD needs to up their game in the GPU segment. I would prefer a Vega 12nm refresh with better HBM2 clocks and tuned much better than the 1st gen in factory voltage settings to consume 10-15% less and have at least 10-15% higher performance. It could be done for sure as Vega UV&OC has shown in tests.

"thekaidis said:The question is, are they dressing up a minor improvement to make it look more significant than it is. When AMD increased the clock speed of the 7970 they called it the 7970 GHz Ed., not 7990.

Different Gen of cards then too. Notice none of the RX line have Xs at the end?

"ShurikN said:This release can only be interesting if it's on TSMC 12nm. More clocks, less power.
If it's still on GloFo, they might as well not bother.

I'd think from what we see it's all about letting GloFo transition to their concurrent process. Because if it was to move to TSCM... AMD would need to spend effort/money on it, and I'm now not seeing that, at this point.

"thekaidis said:The question is, are they dressing up a minor improvement to make it look more significant than it is. When AMD increased the clock speed of the 7970 they called it the 7970 GHz Ed., not 7990.

Both good points. However, IIRC the 7970GHZ was a decent step forward in performance.

Some 580s already OC to around 1545 Mhz like the MSI RX 580 Mech 2, so it could be a 580 instead than a 590. I see 2 differences between to 2 cards compared, the CPU most be different and the drivers are not the same.

This result doesn't make any sense at all, I've had better scores on my RX 480 (4928 graphics, 5249 CPU) nearly two years ago. Mind you it was overclocked to 1530Mhz, but that's still lover than the clock they claim here. Am I missing something? Was there a massive slowdown with some TimeSpy/driver version?